공사대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The parties' assertion
A. From February 2013 to May 2013, Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant construction”) was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the construction cost of KRW 95,350,000,000 for the construction cost, and the Defendant paid KRW 85,350,00 as the construction cost. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 10,350,000 (=95,350,000 - 85,000,000), and delay damages therefrom.
B. The total amount of the construction cost of the instant construction works is KRW 82,100,00 and the construction cost that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff is KRW 85,000,000. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff in excess of the construction cost of the instant construction works, and thus, cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim.
2. The fact that the Plaintiff completed the instant construction works by being awarded a contract by the Defendant from February 2, 2013 to May 2013, 2013, and the fact that the Defendant paid a total of KRW 85,00,000 to the Plaintiff as the construction price of the instant construction works, does not conflict between the parties.
In addition, according to the evidence No. 3-1, No. 2, and evidence No. 6-9, the plaintiff's estimate amount for the construction of this case is acknowledged as the following facts: (a) 6.7 million won including the additional construction for C main complex; (b) 1.25 million won in the case of D main complex construction; (c) 2.1 million won in the case of C additional construction; (d) 4.9 million won in the case of E Hospital; (c) 8.7 million won in the case of F Elementary School; and (d) 1.75 million won in the case of C main complex construction.
However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract for the construction work of the main complex C around February 6, 2013, and written a written estimate claiming that the Plaintiff is the basis for the construction work cost as of June 11, 2012; ② the Plaintiff and the Defendant are D on February 26, 2013.